In a call to arms for musicians, the British producer Whitey has hit out at television production company Betty TV for asking to use one of his tracks, Stay on the Outside, free.

"I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line 'unfortunately there's no budget for music', as if some fixed law of the universe handed you down a sad but immutable financial verdict preventing you from budgeting to pay for music," the musician born Nathan White wrote in a Facebook post directed at Betty TV, a company described on its website as a maker of "modern and high-quality popular formats and factual television series".

"This music is my hard-earned property," White continued. "I've licensed music to some of the biggest shows, brands, games and TV production companies on Earth; from Breaking Bad to The Sopranos, from Coca-Cola to Visa, HBO to Rockstar Games.

"Ask yourself – would you approach a creative or a director with a resume like that, and in one flippant sentence ask them to work for nothing?"

Advertisement

White finished with the words, "I want to see a public discussion begin about this kind of industry abuse of musicians … this was one email too far for me. Enough. I'm sick of you."

Fairfax was unable to get a comment from Betty, which has produced shows as diverse as Bear Grylls: Escape from Hell, Heston's Fantastical Food and The Joy of Teen Sex.

White, however, received a response and, in a second Facebook post, continued to fuel the debate.

"Betty TV went on the record today and claimed that its 'representative was never suggesting that Whitey would go unpaid if we used his track'," he wrote. He then posted a screenshot of the original email he received from Betty's production co-ordinator, which clearly stated, "Unfortunately we don't have any budget for music but it would be great if we could use the track".

White's second post continued, "They have stated this is all 'a misunderstanding' and that this synch 'opportunity' was covered by the British PPL [product placement] 'blanket' agreement on fees.

"But the track Stay on the Outside is not registered with PPL. So if I'd accepted their offer, there would have been NO master fee. Nothing. Which they knew, and which explains their initial approach.

"This is one con following another, from a media industry that perceives the artist as a disposable commodity, weak and easily replaced.

"My message still stands. Support independent creativity."

Whitey's original letter to Betty TV in full:

"I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line 'unfortunately there's no budget for music', as if some fixed Law Of The Universe handed you down a sad but immutable financial verdict preventing you from budgeting to pay for music. Your company set out the budget. So you have chosen to allocate no money for music. I get begging letters like this every week – from a booming, affluent global media industry.

Why is this? Let's look at who we both are.

I am a professional musician, who lives from his music. It took me half a lifetime to learn the skills, years to claw my way up the structure, to the point where a stranger like you will write to me. This music is my hard-earned property. I've licensed music to some of the biggest shows, brands, games and TV production companies on Earth; form Breaking Bad to The Sopranos, from Coca Cola to Visa, HBO to Rockstar Games.

Ask yourself – would you approach a creative or a director with a resume like that – and in one flippant sentence ask them to work for nothing? Of course not. Because your industry has a precedent of paying these people, of valuing their work.

Or would you walk into someone's home, eat from their bowl, and walk out smiling, saying “So sorry, I've no budget for food”? Of course you would not. Because, culturally, we classify that as theft.

Yet the culturally ingrained disdain for the musician that riddles your profession, leads you to fleece the music angle whenever possible. You will without question pay everyone connected to a shoot – from the caterer to the grip to the extra – even the cleaner who mopped your set and scrubbed the toilets after the shoot will get paid. The musician? Give him nothing.

Now let's look at you. A quick glance at your website reveals a variety of well known, internationally syndicated reality programs. You are a successful, financially solvent and globally recognised company with a string of hit shows. Working on multiple series in close co-operation with Channel 4, from a West London office, with a string of awards under your belt. You have real money, to pretend otherwise is an insult.

Yet you send me this shabby request – give me your property for free … Just give us what you own, we want it.

The answer is a resounding, and permanent NO.

I will now post this on my sites, forward this to several key online music sources and blogs, encourage people to re-blog this. I want to see a public discussion begin about this kind of industry abuse of musicians … this was one email too far for me. Enough. I'm sick of you."

14 comments so far

Good on him.

Commenter

Cl

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 1:58PM

I never download films, series, books or anything I know someone sweated over that has been copied without their permission and made available for free. My kids couldn't care less. I do hope those agreeing with Nathan White because it seems fashionable to do so have the intellect to understand his issue is exactly the same for all illegal copying.

Commenter

Clark K

Location

ringwood

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 8:23PM

Yes, I also say good on him. Well done for taking a stand. But this issue is not just about film and TV production houses. Every single person who illegally downloads music is also guilty of stealing from musicians. So, before we all jump quickly on this moral bandwagon, need to examine our own behaviours.

Commenter

MJ

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 2:13PM

yea good on him and i have never downloaded a song for free but i don't get the whole every time someone downloads a song for free they are stealing thing.

if they had to pay for it they probably would not have downloaded it so the artist is not missing out on anything.

when i was at uni someone was passing around some really expensive design programme (supposedly $1,000s)that heaps of people copied, my point is that if they had to pay for it not one of those students would have copied it.

i don't know what the answer is and i can see that some of it is stealing, just not all of it :)

Commenter

markymark

Location

sydney

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 2:53PM

I already paid for a lot of music and the format failed, this was old LP's and cassettes. I paid the copyright but I can't listen to it anymore because the format failed. I am expected to go out and pay copyright again, for a new format ie CD or download, for exactly the same thing I already paid for, and worse, the artist royalty and download costs are almost nothing. So 99% of the charge goes to the middleman. Well looks like Google/Youtube has a plan to fix it for everyone for all time so I look forward to internet jukebox taking over soon and all the other formats will be history, disappeared like candles, horses & carts, telegrams, etc etc.

Commenter

bg

Location

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 3:17PM

markymark, if people copied software or music for free they are stealing. If they really wanted it, and were not taking advantage of an offer for an illegal free copy, then they would have paid for it and the creator would get their due recompense.

Commenter

Muso

Location

Sydney

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 3:39PM

Is it technically stealing though? Isn't it just copyright infringement? Illegal yes, but it doesn't fit my definition of theft because there's no loss to the owner.

People may argue that every song illegally downloaded is 99c someone doesn't get through iTunes, but as pointed out above, a large number of people simply wouldn't own it if they couldn't get it for free. Accordingly, there is no real loss to the original owner.

Illegal, yes. Theft, at least in my mind, no.

Commenter

John

Location

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 4:10PM

@ Markymark. You are right about a lot of people not downloading if they have to pay. And definitely download numbers don't equate to actual sale numbers. But surely if you love someones work you would be happy to pay the ridiculous pittance they sell songs for. If you don't love the work with downloading at all ??? It sort of astonishes me that people only want to download something because it is free. ?? Why do it when you will probably never listen ??

Your example of the hideously expensive program would be right as well, but we are talking a couple of bucks here. Not much to us, but in multiples to a musician can mean him continuing to make music or becoming maybe an accountant. We don't need anymore accountants :)

Commenter

DIDI K

Location

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 8:50PM

How many will agree with his principle yet still rip music and other content off the web? Most, I imagine.

Commenter

Seamus O'Connor

Location

Potts Point

Date and time

November 08, 2013, 2:17PM

I put my hand up as i haven't bought music in years. But am i re-selling the music? NO! Am i using it for commercial interests? NO!

A company like betty needs to have music as part of their creative process which then enables them to make shows for a profit, thus they are earning from the back of someones elses work and expecting said muso to hand over their work for free.

There is a difference, just like when people try and marry downloading some music with stealing someones car. It's cringe-worthy to say the least and it's a misconception that has been perpetuated by a greedy industry not being able to move into more modern times.